WASHINGTON – Had you been in Rep. Susan Davis' office not long ago, you would have witnessed staffers scrambling to write letters and complete forms and whisk them off to people such as Frank Wolf and Charles Taylor.

The deadline was approaching for House Appropriations Committee requests, and what was happening in the San Diego Democrat's office was being repeated in just about every other legislator's office.

Any lawmaker who wanted federal money for a local road, building or business had to get a wish-list to the 66 members of the committee, who have great sway in how the federal government spends its money.

Known as “appropriators,” most committee members, such as Republicans Wolf of Virginia and Taylor of North Carolina, are hardly household names. But they are among the most powerful people on Capitol Hill. These days, they are also among those most closely watched.

Appropriators control the long-criticized and ever-growing practice of “earmarking,” which allows lawmakers to slip federal money for hometown projects into large spending bills with little public scrutiny.

It was the abuse of the earmarking process that led to the imprisonment of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a former House Appropriations Committee member and Rancho Santa Fe Republican who admitted taking bribes in return for directing federal work to defense contractors. It's the earmarking process that watchdog groups call a “pork” system, which quietly rewards campaign contributors. And it's the earmarking process that is under scrutiny this week as the House considers new rules for the practice.

The House may take up a bill that, among other things, would require lawmakers to attach their names to earmarks in all pieces of legislation.

“It's a lot easier to write a letter or make a phone call to an appropriator than to convince an agency to spend money, especially when a project is a dubious one,” said David Williams, a spokesman for Citizens Against Government Waste, whose annual Congressional Pig Book lists what the group considers questionable earmarks.

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 39 percent of Americans believe members of Congress should be banned from “directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents.”

Many House lawmakers are calling for greater transparency in earmarking, but not necessarily doing away with it. They defend earmarking as the surest way to get money to extend a light-rail line back home or to expand an after-school program for constituents.

“At least with an earmark, I can figure out how much I did get,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, a Vista Republican.

Several weeks ago, Issa asked appropriators for $260 million for flood-control programs, harbor dredging, road building, university research programs and Camp Pendleton improvements, among other projects.

The House Appropriations Committee receives more than 35,000 earmark requests each year totaling billions of dollars. The great majority are for road projects, water and sewer improvements, university research and community groups.

Some requests simply reinforce recommendations already in the president's proposed budget. Most, however, originate with a single lawmaker. Some representatives request money for businesses that are also campaign contributors.

For instance, about half the earmark money that Issa won in the current fiscal year – $7 million – went to the Mini-DAMA Satellite communications system, a project of San Diego-based Titan Corp, which is now part of the L-3 Communications Titan Group. Titan executives have given Issa more than $8,500 in campaign contributions in recent years.

Davis has taken about $12,350 in contributions from employees of the University of California San Diego, San Diego State University and the University of San Diego. She requested more than $17 million in earmarks for the three schools.

Watchdog groups say the process can leave the impression that lawmakers hand out taxpayer dollars to people who do them favors.

“It's not an inherently bad process,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan government ethics group. “The problem is that it's occurring in secret, and it's turned into a kind of slush fund for members of Congress to either assure their re-elections or to pay off a wealthy contributor.”

When area lawmakers were asked to list the requests they had sought from appropriators, the office of Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, produced a list within three days, and Davis' office did so within a week.

Issa posted earmark requests on his congressional Web site about a month after being asked.

The staff of Rep. Duncan Hunter, the Alpine Republican who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, agreed to provide a list last week, more than six weeks after being asked. But Hunter spokesman Joe Kasper said the list would be posted on the congressman's Web site in the future.

Filner's wish list included nearly $103 million for, among other things, wetlands restoration, water and sewer improvements, agricultural research and pest-control, health centers, libraries, anti-terrorism measures and equipment and services for military veterans.

Davis asked for $295 million for police and military equipment, port security, wastewater treatment, beach protection, sewer improvements and hospital emergency rooms, among other items.

“There are positive aspects of the process that shouldn't be overlooked,” Davis said. “There are going to be times when (the president's) budget request is not perfect. There are times when the legislative branch should have the opportunity to address such shortcomings.”

Appropriators usually grant only a fraction of what lawmakers request. Issa received about $14 million, and Davis about $25 million. Filner's office did not provide a tally of his earmark awards.

But it adds up: The 9,963 projects that appropriators slipped into 11 bills last year totaled $29 billion. The Appropriations Committee's decisions reflect politics, and perhaps favoritism, as much as the merits of the requests, with senior and powerful lawmakers typically winning more earmarks than their more junior colleagues.

“I do not get nearly my share,” said Issa, who was elected to the House in 2000. “There are Democrats who get more, there are districts that have lower needs that get more, and there are districts growing slower than mine that get more.”

Cunningham has become the poster boy for earmarking reform. Simply requiring lawmakers to put their names on earmarks would go a long way toward reforming the process, watchdog groups say.

“If it's something you are proud to be associated with publicly, something good for your district, then this shouldn't be a problem,” said McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.